We chose not to circumcise our son and I am glad every day that we did not. Even though he doesn't "look" like any other male in our family, we know we made the right decision. Just google image a picture of a circumstraint board and also read the "regretting circ'ing" posts. If it isn't necessary, don't do it. Also, it isn't your decision to make - it is his.

I think , one should only circumsize , when there is a real medical need !

And preferably , when the owner of the foreskin is old enough to speak for himself , but a routine circumsition is not only unnecessary , but painful and can also come with riks attached , so if there is no real need , why bother ?

Do you have a source for this? I'm sending my SIL info on circ due with a boy in July. I've been trying to give her info in a calm, objective manner even though my brain is screaming NOOOOOOOO!. My sister circumcised her two boys and I'm worried that she'll have a greater influence over her. Honestly, the thought of her doing that to her newborn makes me want to cry.

It's hard to come up with a definitive number, since circumcision deaths are not always recorded as such. Cause of death will be listed as "hemmorage", or "infection" or something. Automobile death statistics don't come from hospitals, but from police reports.

My Dad died of lung cancer, but his death certificate says "natural causes".

I think the fact that babies DO die from circumcision complications is shocking and important all by itself, without attaching a number to it. Just one healthy baby dying as a result of an unnecessary operation is one too many, isn't it?

One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .

One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .

But we don't cut off eyelids, earlobes or outer nose parts.. they all do the same function as the foreskin.. protect an inner organ! I don't think Ma Nature makes mistakes.

One argument for circumsition I heard is , that it is easier to keep yourself clean as a man , since " stuff " cannot collect under the ( missing ) foreskin and cause infections , but for me , that´s kind of a lame reason to justify it .

Yeah, if that were a reason they actually believed in, they'd advocate circ'ing girls. It seems way easier to clean off intact penises than intact vulvas. Anytime I take a shower with my DP, I can hardly resist shaking my fist at God, 'cause it's so unfair to us gals. (Okay, okay, in God's defense, the disparity only really exists for showers, rather than other bathing methods.)

Plus dirt can still get caught in the scar tissue or in the framents of foreskin left behind by a "loose" circ.

I am not sure circumcision is an absolute horror on males as it is on females, but I do think it's a cruel and unnecessary addition of unneeded pain to a baby's first few days of life.

Actualy, in general terms, circumcision is worse. When we hear of female circumcision, or FGM, everyone tends to think of the most severe form that involves excision of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and even sometimes involves infibulation. The fact is that only about 10% of FGM is anything like that. The vast majority of cases involve nothing more that a little nick. Just enough to draw blood. Incidentaly, that is more or less how circumcision started out being performed by the jews. It wasn't until some of them participated in the olympic games, where the greeks viewed an exposed glans as indecent, and they kept their foreskin forward, that the rabbis came up with a much more radical form involving complete excision of the foreskin.

The pain suffered by a baby boy undergoing a circumcision is only a small part of the equation, which in itself can have lifelong psychological implications. However, he also looses the five most sensitive parts of his penis; his sexual function is compromised for ever; the sexual satisfaction experienced by his partners is compromised; and he is much more likely to experience ED issues earlier than his intact counterparts.

Actualy, in general terms, circumcision is worse. When we hear of female circumcision, or FGM, everyone tends to think of the most severe form that involves excision of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and even sometimes involves infibulation. The fact is that only about 10% of FGM is anything like that. The vast majority of cases involve nothing more that a little nick. Just enough to draw blood. Incidentaly, that is more or less how circumcision started out being performed by the jews. It wasn't until some of them participated in the olympic games, where the greeks viewed an exposed glans as indecent, and they kept their foreskin forward, that the rabbis came up with a much more radical form involving complete excision of the foreskin.

The pain suffered by a baby boy undergoing a circumcision is only a small part of the equation, which in itself can have lifelong psychological implications. However, he also looses the five most sensitive parts of his penis; his sexual function is compromised for ever; the sexual satisfaction experienced by his partners is compromised; and he is much more likely to experience ED issues earlier than his intact counterparts.

I tend to chime in when the locker room gets mentioned. I am married to an intact man. I have asked him about that and he told me that no teen boy wanted to be caught looking at another guy's penis so there was never any comments about intact vs cut. He played football with a good friend throughout high school and only knows he is also intact because the friend mentioned not circling his sons. And again the circumcision rate is declining. Perhaps at some point parents planning to circumcise will wonder about locker room teasing.

Wow. I hadn't seen that last photo essay.. that's very moving and I'll have to link to it in some of my posts.

For those of us who are very sensitive to this stuff, the last link above has graphic (or to me graphic) images. I feel they are important, but I try to steer clear of them because then I can't sleep :-(.

Sus

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.

For those of us who are very sensitive to this stuff, the last link above has graphic (or to me graphic) images. I feel they are important, but I try to steer clear of them because then I can't sleep :-(.

Sus

Ah, but it might be just the kind of thing to sway a parent. When I look at those pictures, I see human rights violations. The kids are in so much obvious pain and in most cases are being held down somehow.

I tend to chime in when the locker room gets mentioned. I am married to an intact man. I have asked him about that and he told me that no teen boy wanted to be caught looking at another guy's penis so there was never any comments about intact vs cut. He played football with a good friend throughout high school and only knows he is also intact because the friend mentioned not circling his sons. And again the circumcision rate is declining. Perhaps at some point parents planning to circumcise will wonder about locker room teasing.

I spent all 12 years of grade school in boys boarding schools that had totaly open, communal shower rooms. What you say is correct - in high school. Prior to that homophobia was not on anyone's radar. In elementary school we all looked, we all knew everyone's status, but it did not matter. It was just accepted that there were two different kinds of penis. I do not recall one single instance of teasing based on circumcision status. Incidentaly the ratio was about 2/3 circumcised, 1/3 intact.

I'm trying to decide whether or not to circumcise. We're not religious, but I want him to look like his father, who is circumcised.

When my son, who is not 12 and still intact, was a year old, my circumcised ex found out that his father was intact. All the while he was growing up, he didn't have a clue. To look like their father is really a grasping at straws argument. One that really is extremely flawed. It's your son's penis, it's not medically necessary at all, it should be your son's choice. He is the one who is going to have to live with his penis, after all. Not you.

I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to.

Only if you are looking for a reason to take away your son's right to choose what his penis looks like.

BTW, my intact son did see his circumcised Dad naked when he was a toddler. He did not make one comment at all. And he doesn't really remember. Seriously, there is no validity at all to the "looking like father" argument. At all.

I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to. A boy WILL see his father naked early in life (though, obviously, not later on), and he'll develop his early feelings about sexuality and his sex organs from comparing himself to his father. Having a penis that looks like his father's penis is very different than a little girl not having breasts; she can be told she will grow them later, and that they are a distinguishing feature of a mature woman. In the same vein, a boy obviously doesn't have the same size penis as a grown man, but knows he'll get there. A fundamentally different-looking penis, however, can impact his feelings about his genitals. Similarly, having a penis that looks different from those of most of the other boys in the locker room (when he's in school) might make him feel uncomfortable. MOST middle class, white boys are circumcised in the US (whether this is right or not), so uncirc'd boys in that demographic are in the minority. In the end, what bothers me is that circumcision is a much bigger deal for an adult than for an infant, and what if I don't circumcise him and he later wants to have it done?

*sigh*

My 48 year old intact brother grew up in a time when almost all boys here were circ'd. My father was circ'd. My brother didn't grow up with any issue about his penis (sadly, he once had a girlfriend who suffered from MASSIVE oversharing, so I know WAY more about this than I ever wanted to!).

My oldest son is 19. I kept him intact in a time when many (don't have exact stats) boys here were circ'd. My ex was circ'd. DS1's only comment on the subect of circ is "holy crap - they do that? WHY? I'd kill anyone who tried to take off my foreskin!".

DS2 is almost 7, and intact. DH is also circ'd. DS2 has never noticed that daddy's penis is "different". What he has noticed is that his penis can do a "neat trick", which he thinks is really cool.

And, this one is very easy to explain to a boy, if said boy should ever express any curiousity. Dad just has to say, "when I was a baby, my parents thought it was best to cut off my foreskin, but now we know better, so we didn't do that to you". Done. Trust me - a child isn't going to want a part amputated just because a parent had that part amputated (eg. I've known parents who are missing a digit or an eye, and their children have never had any interest in losing those parts to "match"). This is a ridiculous line of thought.

I think there's a lot more validity to the "looking like father" argument than you all give credence to.

Actually, only about 2/3 of boys ever see their father nude, and when they do, it's not the foreskin they notice as being different, but rather size and hair! This is a bogus argument. If there were any psychological substance to it at all, circumcision would have never caught on because boys would have remained intact in order to look like their intact dad!